alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Petition for writ of mandamus by Eugene WHATLEY, Petitioner.

No. A-12369.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Sept. 5, 1956.

*374JONES, Presiding Judge.

Now on this the fifth day of September, 1956, this matter comes on for hearing on the petition of Eugene Whatley for writ of mandamus directed to the District Court of Oklahoma County for case-made. 20 O.S.1951 § 111.

It appears that said petition for writ of mandamus was heretofore heard in the District Court of Oklahoma County by Honorable Clarence Mills, Judge, on June 21, 1956, as evidenced by transcript thereof filed in the Criminal Court of Appeals^ In said transcript, it appears that said attempted appeal is not being taken at this-time in good faith for the reason that no-motion for new trial was ever filed in the District Court of Oklahoma County, the same being State of Oklahoma v. Eugene Whatley, No. 23685, and at the time of trial statement was made in open court that none-would be filed, and pursuant thereto no-notice of appeal was ever given, all of which statements and transactions were made in open court with the petitioner present. It further appears that from the-said record the defendant has relatives who-are able to bear the expense of the said appeal and that his mother financed his. defense in the lower court by leaving a sum with the jailor from which the defendant, himself, employed his defense counsel. Under said conditions, it does-not appear that the petitioner has met the provisions of 20 O.S.1951 § 111, or that the Honorable Clarence Mills has abused his discretion in denying the petitioner’s petition for case-made at the expense of the State of Oklahoma. Gaines v. State, 61 Okl.Cr. 8, 65 P.2d 422; Scroggins v. State, 73 Okl.Cr. 388, 121 P.2d 621.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the writ of mandamus herein prayed for should be and is denied.
#### Hartmann v. Namuo

17471

10/12/94

Affirmed
# C_2021289EN.01001102.xml

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Austria) — Titanium Ltd v Finanzamt Österreich, formerly Finanzamt Wien

(Case C-931/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 43 and 45 - Directive 2006/112/EC, as amended by Directive 2008/8/EC - Articles 44, 45 and 47 - Provision of services - Point of reference for tax purposes - Concept of a ‘fixed establishment’ - Letting a property in a Member State - Owner of a property with its registered office on the island of Jersey)

(2021/C 289/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Titanium Ltd

Defendant: Finanzamt Österreich, formerly Finanzamt Wien

Operative part of the judgment

A property which is let in a Member State, in the circumstance where the owner of that property does not have his or her own staff to perform services relating to the letting does not constitute a fixed establishment within the meaning of Article 43 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and of Articles 44 and 45 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008.

---

(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.

---
ex10-173.htm


Exhibit 10.17.3

 

CONFIRMATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO LICENSE AND DISTIBUTION AGREEMENT

 

The undersigned Trividia Manufacturing Solutions, Inc. F/K/A Nipro Consumer Healthcare, Inc. and d/b/a P.J. Noyes Company, a New Hampshire corporation with its principal offices located at 89 Bridge Street, Lancaster, New Hampshire 03584 (“Licensor”), hereby represents, warrants and confirms to Span-America Medical Systems, Inc., a South Carolina corporation with its principal offices located at 70 Commerce Center, Greenville, South Carolina 29615 (“Licensee”) as follows: 

 

	 	
1.
	
On January 25, 2016, Nipro Consumer Healthcare, Inc. changed its corporate name to Trividia Manufacturing Solutions, Inc. by an amendment to its Articles of Incorporation that was duly authorized and adopted by all requite corporate action, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A;



 

	 	
2.
	
The signature under the name “Nipro Consumer Healthcare, Inc.” on that certain Amendment No.1 to License and Distribution Agreement dated February 1, 2016 by and among Licensor and Licensee (the “Amendment”) amending and extending the term of that certain License and Distribution Agreement effective October 4, 2010 by and among Licensor and Licensee (the “Agreement”) constitutes the duly authorized, valid signature of the Amendment on behalf of the Licensor; 



 

	 	
3.
	
The Agreement as amended by the Amendment constitutes the legal, valid and binding obligation of Licensor enforceable against Licensor in accordance with its terms, except to the extent enforcement thereof may be limited by (i) applicable bankruptcy, reorganization, insolvency or moratorium Laws, or other Laws affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights, or (ii) general principles of equity; and



 

	 	
4.
	
Licensor understands and agrees that Licensee is relying on this Confirmation in continuing to perform its obligations under the Agreement as amended by the Amendment.



 

Trividia Manufacturing Solutions, Inc.

f/k/a Nipro Consumer Healthcare, Inc.

 

By: /s/ Dean G. Sorrentino                                      

Name: Dean G. Sorrentino                                          

Title: CFO                                                                      

Date: 12/21/16                                                           

 

Agreed & Accepted:

Span-America Medical Systems, Inc.

 

By: /s/ Richard C. Coggins                                     

Name: Richard C. Coggins                                          

Title: CFO                                                                  

 

 

-1-
# C_2020390EN.01001102.xml

| 16.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 390/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 390/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 September 2020 — Hamas v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-386/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Fight against terrorism - Restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities - Freezing of funds - Common Position 2001/931/CFSP - Article 1(4) and (6) - Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 - Article 2(3) - Retention of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts - Conditions - Competent authority equivalent to a judicial authority - Sentencing decision - Ongoing risk of involvement in terrorist activities - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection)

(2020/C 390/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Hamas (represented by: L. Glock, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and S. Van Overmiere, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented initially by F. Castillo de la Torre, L. Baumgart, J. Roberti di Sarsina, C. Zadra and A. Tizzano, subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre, L. Baumgart and J. Roberti di Sarsina, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed;

| 2. | Hamas shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Hamas shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darren Smith, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Corriero, J.), rendered January 11, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and unlawful possession of marihuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress certain identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Under the circumstances of this case, it was unnecessary to hold a *Wade*hearing to determine the question of whether the undercover officer’s post arrest viewing of the defendant constituted an improper identification procedure or was merely a confirmation of a previously established identification. Recognizing the expertise of police officers in identification situations, the facts of this case do not suggest any reasonable possibility that the officer’s in-court identification of the defen*272dant might have been influenced by the showup identification at the precinct which took place about two hours after the drug sale *(see, People v Wharton,*74 NY2d 921, 922-923; *People v London,*160 AD2d 734, 735; *cf, People v Baron,*159 AD2d 710, 711).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Hooper, Lawrence and Miller, JJ., concur.
# C_2019035EN.01003001.xml

| 28.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/30

---

Action brought on 26 November 2018 — C.R.D.O.P. ‘Jamón de Teruel/Paleta de Teruel’ v EUIPO — Airesano Foods (AIRESANO BLACK El ibérico de Teruel)

(Case T-696/18)

(2019/C 35/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida ‘Jamón de Teruel/Paleta de Teruel’ (Teruel, Spain) (represented by: F. Pérez Álvarez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Airesano Foods, SL (La Puebla de Valverde, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark AIRESANO BLACK El ibérico de Teruel — Application for registration No 15 240 005

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 September 2018 in Case R 88/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the parties to the proceedings to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the parties to the proceedings to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
**Annex 31. Item 10.3.1. – Section 2.2.1. and 2.2.2. of Chapter 2.4.2. Infection with *B. exitiosa***

CHAPTER 2.4.2.INFECTION WITH *BONAMIA EXITIOSA*

[...]

2.2.	Host factors

2.2.1.	Susceptible host species 

Species that fulfil the criteria for listing as susceptible to infection with *Bonamia exitiosa* according to Chapter 1.5. of the *Aquatic Animal Health Code* (*Aquatic Code*) are: Argentinean flat oyster (*Ostrea puelchana*), Ariake cupped oyster (*Magallana* (syn. *Crassostrea*) *ariakensis*), Australian mud oyster (*Ostrea angasi*)*,* Chilean flat oyster (*Ostrea chilensis*)*,* crested oyster**(*Ostrea equestris*)*,*eastern oyster**(*Crassostrea virginica*)*,*European flat oyster**(*Ostrea edulis*)*~~,~~*and**Olympia oyster**(*Ostrea lurida*)~~and Suminoe oyster**(*Magallana*(syn.***Crassostrea*)*ariakensis*)~~.

2.2.~~1~~2.	Species with incomplete evidence for susceptibility

Species for which there is incomplete evidence to fulfil the criteria for listing as susceptible to infection with *B. exitiosa* according to Chapter 1.5 of the *Aquatic Code* are: dwarf oyster**(*Ostrea stentina*).

In addition, pathogen-specific positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results have been reported in the following species, but no active infection has been demonstrated: Pacific cupped oyster (*Magallana*[syn.***Crassostrea*]*gigas*) and Sydney rock oyster (*Saccostrea glomerata*).

[...]

____________________________
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Unify Corporation (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended July 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven D. Bonham, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:




(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and




(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.




Dated: March 8, 2011
/s/ STEVEN D. BONHAMSteven D. BonhamChief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Unify Corporation and will be retained by Unify Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




---
# C_2008064EN.01004801.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/48

---

Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Productos Asfálticos (Proas) v Commission

(Case T-495/07)

(2008/C 64/79)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Productos Asfálticos (Proas), SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: C Fernandez Vicién, P Carmona Botana and A. Pereda Miquel, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission Decision [C(2007) 4441],or alternatively, reduce the fine imposed on Productos Asfálticos SA, and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission Decision [C(2007) 4441],or alternatively, reduce the fine imposed on Productos Asfálticos SA, and

| — | Order the Commission to pay all the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay all the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is directed against Commission Decision C(2007) 4441 final of 3 October 2007in the Case COMP/38710 — Bitumen Spain. In the contested decision, the Commission declared that the applicant, together with other companies, had infringed Article 81 EC by having taken part, over a certain period, in a set of agreements and concerted practices in the market for penetration bitumen, namely agreements for sharing the market and coordinating prices. In respect of those infringements the Commission imposed a fine for which the applicant and another company are jointly and severally liable.

In support of its claims, the applicant first alleges that the Commission erred in the assessment of the facts. In that context, the applicant considers that the Commission incorrectly assessed the seriousness of the infringement and the position of the applicant in the cartel, with particular reference to its specific weight in the market and the assessment that it was co-leader of the cartel.

Secondly, the applicant complains that the Commission infringed the applicable law. The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes the principle of equal treatment by incorrectly applying the Notice on cooperation of 2002 (1), infringes the principle of sound administration by not having completed the procedure within a reasonable time and sets a fine which is above the lawful limit established in Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2), thereby infringing the principle of proportionality.

1

2

In addition, the applicant considers that the Commission infringed the obligation to state reasons.

---

(1)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002, C 45, p. 3).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

2

---
American Association of Blacks in Energy-Denver Area Chapter 

Testimony for EPA Hearing on Climate Change 

July 30, 2014 

Denver, Co 

Fannie Posey Eddy, President, American Association of Blacks in EnergyDenver Area Chapter (AABE-DAC). 

The American Association of Blacks in Energy (AABE) is a national 

organization of energy professionals comprised of a network of 37 chapters 

with over 1800 members across the United States representing every sector 

of the energy industry. 

Our mission is to ensure the input of African Americans and other minorities 

into the discussions and developments of energy policies, regulations, R&D 

technologies, and environmental issues. 

The AABE recognizes the need for increased participation in the discussion 

on Climate Change policy by historically underserved communities and has 

developed very specific principles related to Climate Change that includes 

the support of: 

Mechanisms to achieve cost-effective reductions in greenhouse 

gas emissions (GHG) 

Reduction policies which do not result in a net negative impact on 

jobs, trade balances and the cost of goods and services. 

Consistent GHG emission reduction policies which seek to balance 

the cost of environmental improvements with the benefits of 

economic development, cleaner air and water. 

Page 1 

14405 W. Colfax Ave #264, Lakewood, Co 80401-3206, 303-570-4989, poseyfpe@gmail.com 
- Policies ensuring that low and fixed income consumers do not 

shoulder a disproportionate cost impact as a result of efforts to 

reduce GHG emissions. 

Climate change is a real threat to the health and welfare of our most 

vulnerable citizens which include the elderly, children, and people living in 

poverty. Realizing that there is no simple solution for addressing the Climate 

Change issue, we support the President's Action Plan to reduce carbon 

pollution and prepare our communities for the effects of climate change. 

We should also continue to pursue options which include the research, 

development, commercialization and deployment of energy efficiency, 

renewable energy, natural gas and other energy technologies that would be 

effective in reducing GHG emissions. 

On behalf of the American Association of Blacks in Energy Denver Area 

Chapter, I would like to thank you for this opportunity and ask that the EPA 

continue to proactively involve the voice of African Americans and other 

minorities in this significant discussion. 

We offer AABE: as a resource and collaborator. 

Thank you, 

Fannie Posey Eddy, President 

AABE-DAC 

Page 2 

14405 W. Colfax Ave #264, Lakewood, Co 80401-3206, 303-570-4989, poseyfpe@gmail.com
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 February 28, 2014

s0224

Order 

Clerk

February 28, 2014

147702

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147702

COA: 316656

Cass CC: 12-010281-FC

ANTHONY QUINTEL BOSTIC,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 22, 2013 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
21682

#### Toribio v. Administrative Director of the Courts, State of Hawaii

Affirmed
O m e r:

T h e s t a r t up / s h u t d ow n e m i ss io n r at e s i n t h e M a y 3

0

, 2 0 1 2 s u bm i ss io n a r e t h e f i n a l st a r t up / s hu t d o w n e m i ss io n

r at e s

, a nd t h e r

at e s t h a t w e r e u s e d i n t h e f

i n a l m o d e li n g

. T h e sta r t u p / s hu t d o w n e m i s s i o n r a t e s i n t h e J un e 8

, 20 1 1 s ubm i s s i o n w e r e n o t b as e d o n c o n v e r s at io n s w i t h t h e b oil e r ma n uf

a c t ur e r, a n d s h o u l d b e ig n o r

e d.

T h a n k s

, a n d p l e as

e l e t m e k n o w i f y o u h a v e a n y a dd i t io n a l qu e s

t i o n s.

E r ic

E r i c A l b r i gh t

, PE | S e n i o r Ma n ag er

E N V IR O N I nte r n at i on a l C o r po r a t i on

19 0 20 33 rd A v e n ue W

, S u i te 31 0 | L y nn w oo d

, W A 9 80 36

T : + 1 4 2 5 4 1 2 1 80 4 | F : + 1 4 2 5 4 12 18 4 0 | M : + 1 2 0 6 9 0 9 0 591

ea l b r i g ht @ e n v i r on c o r p

. c om

F r o m: O me r S h a l e v

[ m a il t o : S h a l e v

. Ome r @ e p am a il

. e p a

. gov ]

S e n t: W e d n e sd a y

, J u n e 2 7

, 2

0 1 2 1 2 : 2 4 P M

T o: E ri c A lbrig h t

C c: Cl e v e l a n d H oll a d a y ; D a v e Br o w n ; G e r a rdo R io s 

### R E : Mod e li ng : S P I A nd er so n

E r i c A l b r i gh t

t o :

O m er S h a l e v

06 / 27 / 2012 12 : 40 P M

C c :

C l e v e l a nd H o ll a d a y, D a v e B r o w n, G e ra r do R i os, G e o r g e E m m e r son

H i d e D e t a i l s

F r o m: E r i c A l b r i gh t <e a l b r i gh t @ e nv i r on c o rp. c o m>

To : O m e r S h a l e v /R 9 / U S E P A / U S @E P A

C c : Cl e v e l a nd H o ll a d a y /R 9 / U S E P A / U S @ E P A

, D a v e B r o w n < D B r o w n@sp i

- i nd. c o m>

, G er a r do Ri os /R 9 / U S E P A / U S @ E P A

, G e o r g e E m m e r son < G EMME R S ON @ s p i

- i nd. c o m> P a g e 1 o f 6

8 / 2 / 2012 f i l e : / /C: \ D o c u m e n t s a nd S e t ti ngs \ osh a l e v \ Lo c a l S e t t i ngs \ T e m p \ no t e s B AAA 2 5 \

~ w e b8467.h tm